Lyn Ellen Pleger

Are Some Countries More Prone to Pressure Evaluators Than Others? Comparing Findings From the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland:

Pressure on evaluators has been investigated recently by surveys in the USA, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland. This study compares the results of those studies regarding pressure on evaluators in different countries. The findings suggest that independence of evaluations does not exist for many respondents. Moreover, the person who commissioned the evaluator for evaluation is identified by all studies as the primary influencing stakeholder in the evaluation process. In terms of differences, Germany seems to be more prone to pressure on evaluators. However, German evaluators do not show stronger tendencies to surrender to pressure than the other countries’ respondents. We suggest that this pattern may be explained by the strong state tradition in Germany as opposed to the U.S. and Switzerland, in conjunction with evaluators’ profession-based, principled resistance to such pressure.

Sustainable Spatial Planning in Direct Democracies: The Case of Switzerland

This chapter provides a stepwise approach towards the policy area of spatial planning as a central concept of this book. In addition, the central case of spatial planning is introduced in the context of Switzerland. The chapter is structured as follows: First, the term spatial planning is defined. The first section outlines the recent history of the establishment and challenges of spatial planning, and relates the concept to sustainability (Sect. 2.1). The chapter then clarifies what is understood by spatial planning as a public policy (Sect. 2.2). To do so, the mode of action of public policies transferred to spatial planning is presented and a model capturing the involvement pattern of the affected parties by a spatial planning measure is proposed. Moreover, a clarification is then made to define policy instruments in general and spatial planning policy instruments in detail. Building on that, the effectiveness of spatial planning measures are addressed (Sect. 2.3). The chapter closes with a section covering spatial planning in Switzerland, including its characteristics, origin, establishment and examples of Swiss spatial planning measures (Sect. 2.4).

Framing Effects on Democratic Acceptability: An Experimental Approach

This chapter investigates whether the way the public is provided with information on spatial planning policies influences democratic acceptability towards an incentive-based policy instrument. In a survey experiment involving Swiss participants, goal and attribute framing effects are tested by combining framing theory with a causal model for public policies. The chapter starts with a theoretical framework, including a review of the state of research in framing theories combined with theoretical considerations of public policy modes of action (Sect. 6.1). Hypotheses are then derived on this basis (Sect. 6.2). The experimental design is explained (Sect. 6.3), followed by a discussion of the results (Sect. 6.4). The results suggest that the provision of information on a new spatial planning measure in either a positive or negative frame can impact citizen acceptance of the policy measure. Additional findings indicate that the target group of landowners reacts to frames differently, compared to a less directly affected sample population. Presented evidence shows that framing effects differ depending on the type of frame applied (Sects. 6.5 and 6.6). Section 6.7 discusses further survey experiment findings. These findings provide additional insights into democratic acceptability of spatial planning policy measures, and are not directly related to the framing.

The Motivation Behind Democratic Acceptance: A Case Study

This chapter focuses on one particular spatial planning measure, namely the Amendment of Spatial Planning Law, which was accepted by Swiss citizens in 2013. The main issue addressed in this chapter is whether the assumption from literature holds true that voters are politically uninformed and prefer the status quo over uncertain alternatives. Secondly, the chapter investigates the reasons behind citizens’ voting decisions. The chapter clarifies the components of the Amendment of Spatial Planning Law (Sect. 5.1), followed by a theoretical introduction to dual-processing theories (Sect. 5.2). The research design is presented in Sect. 5.3, including the data, method, and statistical models. The findings reveal that information and arguments concerning the ballot proposal played a crucial role in voters’ acceptance of the measure. Moreover, results indicate that the way information is processed by voters differs depending on the voting decision: Whereas ‘yes’-voters appear to have formed their opinion by applying systematic processing paths, ‘no’-voters appear to have formed their opinion primarily via heuristics. Following a discussion of the results (Sect. 5.4), the chapter concludes with a summary of the main findings and their interpretation against the initial hypotheses and theoretical framework (Sects. 5.5-5.6).

Democratic Acceptance of Spatial Planning Policies

This chapter defines the second central concept of the book, namely acceptance, by emphasising the distinction between the terms acceptance and acceptability. The main issues addressed in this chapter are threefold: Firstly, this chapter begins with a clarification of the term acceptance in the context of public policies and how acceptance can be operationalized and measured empirically. Both potential methods to measure public policy acceptance as well as the acceptance operationalization applied in this book are presented (Sect. 3.1). Subsequently, the institutional anchorage of direct democracy in Switzerland and the domestic usage of direct-democratic instruments are discussed (Sect. 3.2). This chapter closes with an overview of the state of research regarding the acceptance of public policies, also covering research on democratic acceptance in environmental and transport policies (Sect. 3.3).

Determinants of Democratic Acceptance: A Two-Level Analysis

This chapter analyses democratic acceptance of spatial planning policy measures by applying a two-level model, and using a Bayesian multilevel modelling approach. This involves analyses of 18 popular votes on spatial planning measures between 1984 and 2008 in Switzerland, implying potential acceptance determinants at the individual as well as the contextual level. The chapter opens with an overview of the applied theoretical framework for the concept of acceptance, before the theory behind individual determinants and contextual determinants, including hypotheses is discussed (Sect. 4.1). Subsequently, the data, model and methods are presented (Sects. 4.2 and 4.3), followed by the results (Sect. 4.4). The results demonstrate that determinants on both the individual and contextual level impact voters’ acceptance of spatial planning measures. At the individual level, voters’ political affiliations are an important factor for their voting decisions, as well as whether they are homeowners or not. At the contextual level, policy measures which contain incentive-based instruments have a higher probability of being accepted than ones that are based on bans and rules. Moreover, the degree of organisational capacity and conflict capability of interests concerned seems to influence voters’ decisions. The chapter closes with a discussion on the findings and resulting conclusions (Sect. 4.5).

Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturpolitik

Das Kapitel vermittelt eine Einfuhrung in die Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturpolitik aus einer Kombination der politikwissenschaftlichen und wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Perspektive heraus. Im Zentrum dieses Kapitels stehen die Klarung der Bedeutung von Verkehrspolitik als Public Policy sowie die Darlegung der Gemeinsamkeit zwischen dem Anliegen der Politik- und Wirtschaftswissenschaft, gesellschaftliche Probleme zu losen. Verschiedene Beispiele aus der Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturpolitik werden herangezogen, um die Komplementaritat zwischen beiden Disziplinen zu verdeutlichen und die Wirkungsmechanismen hinter gesellschaftlichen Problemen, die durch Verkehr entstehen, zu veranschaulichen.

The big bad wolf’s view: The evaluation clients’ perspectives on independence of evaluations

The independence of evaluations has gained increasing attention in research. So far, research has mainly focused on evaluators’ experiences when confronted with pressure, leading to a restricted view of the complex context in which evaluations take place. Therefore, this article broadens the debate and follows the call by previous studies to pay attention to evaluation clients, which have been identified as the main influencing stakeholders within evaluation processes. The findings of an online survey among Swiss evaluation clients show that most clients have never been told by evaluators that they put the latter under pressure, even though previous studies found that half of the evaluators feel pressured. Nonetheless, clients frequently experience conflicts during evaluations that are often caused by a lack of a common understanding between evaluators and clients. Thus, we conclude that preventive measures are needed to increase the parties’ mutual comprehension, and ultimately, the quality of evaluation results.